Abstract

Wastewaters discharged from various coal-related activities deteriorate fresh water quality and inflict possibilities of groundwater contamination. Their characteristics mostly depend on the parent coal properties, though some of the pollutants are cyanide, thiocyanate, ammonia, phenol, heavy metals and suspended solids. This paper has reviewed the treatment techniques along with the characteristics of all such kinds of wastewater and also identified the challenges and future perspectives. Primarily, demineralization of coal can attenuate and control release of pollutants in wastewaters if implemented successfully. Mine water from non-lignite mines can be purified using simple techniques, for its reutilization. Acidic mine water and leachates can be treated using passive bioreactors with microbial activity, different organic substrates and limestone drains. Additionally bio-electrochemical systems, membranes, macrocapsules, zeolite filters, ores, physical barriers, and aquatic plants can also be used at various stages. Coal washery wastewater can be treated using natural coagulants obtained from plant extracts along with conventional coagulants. Nitrification and denitrification bacteria fixed in reactors along with activated carbon and zero-valent iron can treat coke oven wastewater. Some other sophisticated techniques are vacuum distillation, super critical oxidation, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis. Practical use of these methods, wisely in an integrated way, can reduce freshwater consumption.

ABBREVIATIONS

     
  • A1-A2-O

    Anaerobic–anoxic–aerobic biofilm system

  •  
  • ALD

    Anoxic limestone drain

  •  
  • AMD

    Acid mine drainage

  •  
  • BDD

    Boron-doped diamond anode system

  •  
  • COD

    Chemical oxygen demand

  •  
  • FA

    Fly ash

  •  
  • MBR

    Membrane bioreactor

  •  
  • MW

    Mine water

  •  
  • NF

    Nanofiltration

  •  
  • RO

    Reverse osmosis

  •  
  • SRB

    Sulphate reducing bacteria

  •  
  • TCN

    Total cyanide

  •  
  • TN

    Total nitrogen

  •  
  • TOC

    Total organic carbon

  •  
  • TPP

    Thermal power plant

  •  
  • WW

    Wastewater

  •  
  • ZVI

    Zerovalent iron

INTRODUCTION

Rapid increase in the usage of coal has resulted in release of coal-related toxic pollutants through wastewaters (WWs) originating from coal mining sites, washeries, coke plants, and thermal power plants (TPPs). The quality of these WWs depends on the coal properties and the process involved in coal processing. Discharge of these WWs gravely impacts the quality of nearby water bodies, aquatic life and the food chain along with the groundwater (Pal & Kumar 2014).

The above coal-related industries mainly release four kinds of WW. The first of is mine water (MW), which is generated in ample amounts during non-lignite coal mining. It is mostly affected by hardness, suspended solids and bacterial contaminants (Soni & Wolkersdorfer 2016). Comparatively, one other kind of MW also called acid mine drainage (AMD) originating from lignite mines is highly contaminated with metals. Oxidation of pyrite present in the mine overburden dumps in presence of moisture is the actual cause of AMD generation, which also dissolves many toxic metals such as zinc, copper, iron, manganese, cadmium, nickel, chromium, lead, cobalt, and mercury during its passage from the rocks (Equeenuddin et al. 2010). Seeping of the AMD into water systems leads to 2–1,200 times more metal concentration in them compared to the world average metal concentration in water bodies. The metals are non-biodegradable and some of them such as lead, cadmium, and mercury, are highly toxic to living organisms. Metals bioaccumulate when passed from a lower trophic level to the next higher trophic level and seriously deteriorate metabolic functions of organisms. Natural reduction in acidity and subsequent metal concentration in AMD is only possible if there are sufficient carbonates in the coal rocks (Miranda et al. 2010).

The second kind of WW is that which is generated from coal washeries during coal washing. The mined-out coal is sent to coal washeries through a conveyor belt, wherein its impurities are removed through specific gravity-based processes, to increase its heating value (Ghose 2001). The process generates a huge amount of coal slurry having large amounts of solids, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and metals. This effluent is often disposed of in surface waters which affects aquatic life by having a blanketing effect. Optionally it is also injected into abandoned underground mines (Yan et al. 2012). In the event, the process also results in loss of coal fines, usually 6–10 tonnes per day from a single washery plant (Tiwary & Dhar 1994; Ghose 2001).

The third and fourth kind of WW is generated from steel plants and TPPs respectively, which are responsible for steel production and electricity generation from the washed coal. The former makes metallurgical coke from coal through carbonization for further use in blast furnaces, which ultimately generates coke oven WW having highly hazardous nitrogenous, phenolic and other organic pollutants. The contaminants have the property to migrate to long distances from disposal sites and are genotoxic as well as carcinogenic to the living organisms (WHO 1997; Pal et al. 2011; Sharma & Philip 2016). Presence of these pollutants in surface water largely increases the oxygen demand and rapidly destroys the aquatic life. Eutrophication of the water bodies are observed due to rapid phenol degradation (Yu et al. 2016). TPPs generate fly ash (FA) through coal combustion. FA contains many heavy metals attached to its alumino-silicate matrix, which are often 4–10 times higher than the parent coal and are readily leachable in aqueous medium (Maiti & Prasad 2016). These metals find their way through wet and dry disposal sites of FA. Wet or slurry form disposal is done in ponds, from which the leachate left after FA settling often overflows to surface water bodies during the monsoon or leaches into groundwater through unlined ash ponds; also the ash itself can spill out through breached earthen walls (Yao et al. 2015). Dry disposal of FA creates huge unstable dumps which are the primary cause of slurry erosion during the monsoon. The dumps also lead to blowing of fine particles of FA which can also deposit on water bodies causing turbidity and metal pollution (Stefaniak et al. 2015).

In view of the above problems various laws have been formulated, which instruct the related industries to treat the WW up to a standard quality before discharge (EPR 1986; WHO 1997; BIS 2012). In this regard an extensive literature survey has been done to advocate possible treatment strategies for the WWs based on their individual characteristics, recent developments, and eco-friendly nature, while also addressing their benefits and challenges.

MINE WATER AND TREATMENT

Opencast mining encounters a permanent flow of water into mine pits along with subsequent loss of water from the nearby aquifers; as a result the communities living near the mine sites suffer from water scarcity. Annually only 13% of MW is reutilized for sprinkling and dust suppression in sites and a majority amount of the water is disposed of (obtained from an unpublished report of Mines of India). The amount of water depends on the size of mine. For example, different coal mine subsidiaries in India release 0.07–0.41 Mm3 of MW every day and the total amount of water released per day is 1.24 Mm3 (Debnath 2013). The mine water is characterized by dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, iron and manganese (Table 1), at concentrations which are comparatively higher than the standard drinking water limits (BIS 2012). However, these contaminants can be easily removed by simple cost-effective techniques to achieve the purity level of drinking water (Figure 1).

Table 1

Characteristics of mine water, acid mine water, coal washery effluents, coke plant wastewater, and fly ash leachates

ParametersMine wateraAcid mine waterCoal washery effluentbCoke plant wastewatercFly ash leachatedDischarge limitse
pH 5.02–8.7 2.9–5.8 2.5–8.2 6.5–11.5 4.4–12.9 4–12 
Colour, Hazen unit <2.0 – – – – <5–15 
Turbidity, NTU – – 5,387–23,360 84–528 – 1–5 
Odour Agreeable – – – – Agreeable 
Total suspended solids – – 110–30,000 2–712 12–140 15–50 
Total dissolved solids 174–1,510 – 291–729 1,920 142–1,743 1,000–2,000 
Alkalinity 132–488 – 224–17,200 41–681 200–600 
Chloride 4–92 – 184 2,730 3–95 350–700 
Sulphide – – – 1.4–49 – 0.05–0.2 
Sulphate 5–749 489–14,920 66–564 – 49–916 300–500 
Nitrate 0.02–3 – 0.15–0.37 – – 10–20 
Ammonium nitrogen – – – 49–520 0.04–0.64 5–10 
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen – – – 50–1,625 – 50 
Biological oxygen demand – – 1,001 60–5,450 – 15 
Chemical oxygen demand – – 192–6,468 81–16,000 – 100 
Total organic carbon – – – 100–4,390 – 50 
Phosphorus – – – – 0.01–0.08 3–30 
Fluoride 0.03–2.05 –    50 
Hardness 390–712 – 358–720 – 105–985 200–600 
Calcium 30–484 136–309 118–133 – 32–17,250 150–200 
Magnesium 24–400 67–115 16 – 0.4–352 150–200 
Sodium – – 30 – 17–601 200 
Iron 0.061–0.371 50–4,537 0.13–212 – 0.02–6.7 1–20 
Aluminium – 7–800 – – 1.4–373 
Nickel – – 0.06 – 0.03–2.1 0.02–0.5 
Manganese 0.018–12.93 15–155 0.07 – 0.01–36.4 1–5 
Lead 0.018–0.021 – – – 0.01–2.8 0.1–2 
Cadmium – – 0.01 – 0.001–0.8 0.003–0.2 
Zinc 0.012–1.533 0.01–4 – – 0.01–37 1–10 
Copper 0.008–0.023 73 – – 0.01–1.7 0.2–10 
Arsenic <0.01 – – – 0.28 0.1–1 
Selenium <0.01 – – – 0.002–2.4 0.05–0.5 
Chromium <0.01 – – – 0.004–3.3 0.05–0.5 
Barium – – – – 0.1–1.32 0.7–4 
Beryllium – – – – 0.01–0.2 0.3 
Mercury – – – – 0.038 0.001–0.1 
Boron – – – – 0.3–109 0.5–2 
Molybdenum – – – – 0.06–3.92 0.05–1 
Lithium – – – – 0.68–26.3 10 
Vanadium – – – – 0.3–1 
Phenols 0.002 – – 50–1,650 – 0.1–1.2 
Oil and grease – – 1.7–4.6 4.7–1,250 – 5–15 
Cyanide – – – 0.1–210 0.01 0.05–2 
ParametersMine wateraAcid mine waterCoal washery effluentbCoke plant wastewatercFly ash leachatedDischarge limitse
pH 5.02–8.7 2.9–5.8 2.5–8.2 6.5–11.5 4.4–12.9 4–12 
Colour, Hazen unit <2.0 – – – – <5–15 
Turbidity, NTU – – 5,387–23,360 84–528 – 1–5 
Odour Agreeable – – – – Agreeable 
Total suspended solids – – 110–30,000 2–712 12–140 15–50 
Total dissolved solids 174–1,510 – 291–729 1,920 142–1,743 1,000–2,000 
Alkalinity 132–488 – 224–17,200 41–681 200–600 
Chloride 4–92 – 184 2,730 3–95 350–700 
Sulphide – – – 1.4–49 – 0.05–0.2 
Sulphate 5–749 489–14,920 66–564 – 49–916 300–500 
Nitrate 0.02–3 – 0.15–0.37 – – 10–20 
Ammonium nitrogen – – – 49–520 0.04–0.64 5–10 
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen – – – 50–1,625 – 50 
Biological oxygen demand – – 1,001 60–5,450 – 15 
Chemical oxygen demand – – 192–6,468 81–16,000 – 100 
Total organic carbon – – – 100–4,390 – 50 
Phosphorus – – – – 0.01–0.08 3–30 
Fluoride 0.03–2.05 –    50 
Hardness 390–712 – 358–720 – 105–985 200–600 
Calcium 30–484 136–309 118–133 – 32–17,250 150–200 
Magnesium 24–400 67–115 16 – 0.4–352 150–200 
Sodium – – 30 – 17–601 200 
Iron 0.061–0.371 50–4,537 0.13–212 – 0.02–6.7 1–20 
Aluminium – 7–800 – – 1.4–373 
Nickel – – 0.06 – 0.03–2.1 0.02–0.5 
Manganese 0.018–12.93 15–155 0.07 – 0.01–36.4 1–5 
Lead 0.018–0.021 – – – 0.01–2.8 0.1–2 
Cadmium – – 0.01 – 0.001–0.8 0.003–0.2 
Zinc 0.012–1.533 0.01–4 – – 0.01–37 1–10 
Copper 0.008–0.023 73 – – 0.01–1.7 0.2–10 
Arsenic <0.01 – – – 0.28 0.1–1 
Selenium <0.01 – – – 0.002–2.4 0.05–0.5 
Chromium <0.01 – – – 0.004–3.3 0.05–0.5 
Barium – – – – 0.1–1.32 0.7–4 
Beryllium – – – – 0.01–0.2 0.3 
Mercury – – – – 0.038 0.001–0.1 
Boron – – – – 0.3–109 0.5–2 
Molybdenum – – – – 0.06–3.92 0.05–1 
Lithium – – – – 0.68–26.3 10 
Vanadium – – – – 0.3–1 
Phenols 0.002 – – 50–1,650 – 0.1–1.2 
Oil and grease – – 1.7–4.6 4.7–1,250 – 5–15 
Cyanide – – – 0.1–210 0.01 0.05–2 
Figure 1

Low-cost treatment for mine water.

Figure 1

Low-cost treatment for mine water.

The technique includes removal of floating impurities, followed by storage, and sedimentation of coarser materials in horizontal flow tanks. The dimensions of the tanks would depend on the capacity of the water treatment plant. The settled particles can be removed periodically after formation of a sludge zone of >0.8 m, followed by aeration to remove odours and precipitation of iron as well as manganese. Hardness can be removed by rapid dissolution of lime-soda. Coagulants such as alum conjugated with FeSO4 or lime can be added to remove turbidity. Final disinfection can be ensured through chlorination or ozone treatment. A few highly sophisticated techniques such as nanofiltration (NF), reverse osmosis (RO) and ion exchange are practised in some mines across the globe, which remove salt ions, total dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity, ammonia and metals (USEPA 2014). However, they extend the budget of the mining industry and are unfeasible for the developing countries.

On the other hand, pollutants present in AMD (Table 1) are remediated through biological procedures (Table 2) such as passive remediation using sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) in bioreactors and wetlands. Metabolically the bacteria utilize the carbon and nitrogen source of a substrate and produce hydrogen sulphide in anaerobic conditions, which in turn reduces dissolved metals to sulphides. The later precipitates are ultimately absorbed in sedimentary deposits. Industrial utilization of this process can treat AMD and induce alkalinity in it. Although the process requires minimal energy, it is less effective at high flow volumes and metal concentrations (Wieder 1989; Greben et al. 2009). This technique can be supported through installing anoxic limestone drains (ALDs), which increase the metal removal efficiency by 30%, add bicarbonate alkalinity and also have a lifetime of >20 years (Hedin et al. 1994; Ziemkiewicz et al. 2003). These ALDs are also affected in presence of highly acidic AMD with a coating of reddish iron oxyhydroxide within 48 h of contact. This can be reduced by using CO2 (Hammarstrom et al. 2003). Coupling of ALD with SRB (or zinc-tolerant SRB) is known as successive alkalinity-producing systems, which can also be installed as vertical passage systems to reduce area requirement (Kepler & McCleary 1994). This integrated technique has been effective in reducing high sulphate and zinc in AMD (Castillo et al. 2012). Macrocapsules having a pH-sensitive polymer and a phosphate buffer are better than limestone for AMD treatment (Aelion et al. 2009).

Table 2

Treatment procedures for acid mine drainage

Material usedScaleResultsReference
Wetlands or with sulphate reducing bacteria In situ 8–81% acidity, Fe, Al, Mn, SO4 reduced; pH and alkalinity increased from 3 to 7 and from 0 to 1,077 mg L−1 respectively Wieder (1989) and McIntire & Edenborn (1990
Anaerobic reactor + mushroom compost + sulphate reducing bacteria Pilot 95% of Al, Cd, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn precipitated as sulfides, hydroxides, carbonates Dvorak et al. (1992)  
Anoxic limestone drains In situ 17–30% of SO4, Fe, Mn, K, Na, Ca, Mg decreased Hedin et al. (1994)  
Sand bed + crushed stones + sulphate reducing bacteria Bench pH increased and metals decreased after 203 days Christensen et al. (1996)  
Permeable reactive wall (organic matter + sulphate reducing bacteria) In situ Fe decreased from 1,300 to 40 mg L−1, pH and alkalinity increased from 5.8 to 7.0 and from 0 to 600 mg L−1 respectively Benner et al. (1997)  
Methanol + sulfate reducing bioreactor Bench 88% SO4 reduced, Fe decreased from 100 to 2 mg L−1, pH increased Tsukamoto & Miller (1999)  
Chitin Bench pH increased from 3 to 7, alkalinity increased from 0 to 235 mg L−1, acidity decreased from 192 to 114 mg L−1, SO4 decreased from 489 to 303 mg L−1, >80% Fe, Al, Mn reduced after 9 days Daubert & Brennan (2007)  
Eichhornia crassipes, Lemna minor Bench Reduced metals in 21 days Mishra et al. (2008)  
Cellulose degradation products Bench SO4 reduced by >78%, iron precipitated as FeS Greben et al. (2009)  
Macrocapsules + pH-sensitive polymer + phosphate buffer Bench + field pH increased from 3 to 6; metals and phosphate decreased Aelion et al. (2009)  
Zn-tolerant sulphate reducing bacteria Bench Completely removed Zn as sulphide sphalerite, wurtzite Castillo et al. (2012)  
Nanofiltration − 2540 membrane Bench Removed As, Sb, Pb, Hg at moderate pressure Sierra et al. (2013)  
NaP1 zeolite from coal fly ash Bench Zeolite removed As, Ni, Cu, Ca, Fe, Mn at 10 g L−1 Cardoso et al. (2015)  
Mussel shell + sulfate reducing bioreactor Bench Removed 86–90% Al, Fe, Cu, Zn; pH and alkalinity increased to 6 and 350 mg L−1 respectively Uster et al. (2015)  
Passive batch bioreactor-manure + compost + sawdust + gravel + limestone + sediment Bench pH and alkalinity increased, SO4 reduced by >70%, Fe and Zn removed by >99% after 45 days Vasquez et al. (2016)  
Bio-electrochemical system Bench SO4 reduced to <550 mg L−1; Al, Fe, Zn was precipitated Pozo et al. (2017)  
Microspora tumidula Bench Accumulation of sulphur and phosphorus in algae at pH 5 Oberholster et al. (2017)  
Material usedScaleResultsReference
Wetlands or with sulphate reducing bacteria In situ 8–81% acidity, Fe, Al, Mn, SO4 reduced; pH and alkalinity increased from 3 to 7 and from 0 to 1,077 mg L−1 respectively Wieder (1989) and McIntire & Edenborn (1990
Anaerobic reactor + mushroom compost + sulphate reducing bacteria Pilot 95% of Al, Cd, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn precipitated as sulfides, hydroxides, carbonates Dvorak et al. (1992)  
Anoxic limestone drains In situ 17–30% of SO4, Fe, Mn, K, Na, Ca, Mg decreased Hedin et al. (1994)  
Sand bed + crushed stones + sulphate reducing bacteria Bench pH increased and metals decreased after 203 days Christensen et al. (1996)  
Permeable reactive wall (organic matter + sulphate reducing bacteria) In situ Fe decreased from 1,300 to 40 mg L−1, pH and alkalinity increased from 5.8 to 7.0 and from 0 to 600 mg L−1 respectively Benner et al. (1997)  
Methanol + sulfate reducing bioreactor Bench 88% SO4 reduced, Fe decreased from 100 to 2 mg L−1, pH increased Tsukamoto & Miller (1999)  
Chitin Bench pH increased from 3 to 7, alkalinity increased from 0 to 235 mg L−1, acidity decreased from 192 to 114 mg L−1, SO4 decreased from 489 to 303 mg L−1, >80% Fe, Al, Mn reduced after 9 days Daubert & Brennan (2007)  
Eichhornia crassipes, Lemna minor Bench Reduced metals in 21 days Mishra et al. (2008)  
Cellulose degradation products Bench SO4 reduced by >78%, iron precipitated as FeS Greben et al. (2009)  
Macrocapsules + pH-sensitive polymer + phosphate buffer Bench + field pH increased from 3 to 6; metals and phosphate decreased Aelion et al. (2009)  
Zn-tolerant sulphate reducing bacteria Bench Completely removed Zn as sulphide sphalerite, wurtzite Castillo et al. (2012)  
Nanofiltration − 2540 membrane Bench Removed As, Sb, Pb, Hg at moderate pressure Sierra et al. (2013)  
NaP1 zeolite from coal fly ash Bench Zeolite removed As, Ni, Cu, Ca, Fe, Mn at 10 g L−1 Cardoso et al. (2015)  
Mussel shell + sulfate reducing bioreactor Bench Removed 86–90% Al, Fe, Cu, Zn; pH and alkalinity increased to 6 and 350 mg L−1 respectively Uster et al. (2015)  
Passive batch bioreactor-manure + compost + sawdust + gravel + limestone + sediment Bench pH and alkalinity increased, SO4 reduced by >70%, Fe and Zn removed by >99% after 45 days Vasquez et al. (2016)  
Bio-electrochemical system Bench SO4 reduced to <550 mg L−1; Al, Fe, Zn was precipitated Pozo et al. (2017)  
Microspora tumidula Bench Accumulation of sulphur and phosphorus in algae at pH 5 Oberholster et al. (2017)  

Substrates which have been studied in artificially constructed anaerobic reactors for efficient AMD treatment are spent mushroom compost (Dvorak et al. 1992; Christensen et al. 1996), degradation products of grasses to remove sulphate (Greben et al. 2009), mixture of cow manure, mushroom compost, sawdust, gravel, limestone and sediment (Vasquez et al. 2016), mussel shells (Uster et al. 2015) and coagulants obtained from chitinous material (Daubert & Brennan 2007). More than 95% of the activity of the substrates can be regained by adding reducing equivalents such as methanol to the substrate (Tsukamoto & Miller 1999). Macroalgae can treat AMD in hybrid systems, which in turn also increases the macroalgae chlorophyll content (Oberholster et al. 2017). Metals in AMD can be removed by aquatic plants (Eichhornia crassipes, Lemna minor) which accumulate 10 times more metals in the roots, without showing any toxicity symptoms (Mishra et al. 2008), zeolites synthesized from coal FA (Cardoso et al. 2015), and bio-electrochemical systems (Pozo et al. 2017) without any extra chemical dosing and with reduced sludge formation. Earlier field applications in this aspect includes installation of an artificial permeable reactive wall perpendicular to the groundwater flow, which helped in treating AMD in a time period less than a year while staying effective for at least 15 years (Benner et al. 1997). Overall, AMD can be treated by combined strategies (Figure 2) such as wetlands with SRB, macroalgae, aquatic plants, different organic substrates, and ALDs, and can be further treated with macrocapsules, natural coagulants, membranes or zeolites.

Figure 2

Treatment procedures for acid mine drainage (AMD: acid mine drainage; SRB: sulphate reducing bacteria; SAPS: successive alkalinity producing systems).

Figure 2

Treatment procedures for acid mine drainage (AMD: acid mine drainage; SRB: sulphate reducing bacteria; SAPS: successive alkalinity producing systems).

COAL WASHERY EFFLUENTS AND TREATMENT

The huge amount of WW released by coal washeries (approximately 300–500 m3 of effluent each day per plant) can be treated for reuse in coal washing and to reduce fresh water consumption, because, as per estimates, every 100 tonnes of coal requires 6 × 105 to 2 × 106 gallons (2,270–7,570 m3) of water for washing (Ghose 2001). Various parameters in the effluents (Table 1) have values above standard limits (EPR 1986; WHO 1997; BIS 2012). The pollutants that are mainly coarser solids can be removed through sedimentation, and dissolved solids by coagulants (Table 4), wherein oppositely charged ions destabilize stable colloids and result in settleable flocs (Menkiti & Onukwuli 2011a, 2011b).

Table 3

Treatment of coal washery effluents using coagulants

CoagulantPollutantsDosageRemoval efficiencyReference
Starch + alum + FeCl3 Turbidity, suspended solids 30–250 mg L−1 pH = 4, efficiency =>90% Nnaji et al. (2014)  
Fly ash Chemical oxygen demand, suspended solids 10 g L−1 pH = 9, efficiency is >90% Yan et al. (2012)  
Chitin Turbidity, suspended solids 10 mg L−1 pH = 8, efficiency is >90% Menkiti & Onukwuli (2011a, 2011b)  
Afzelia bella seed 0.2–0.3 kg m−3 pH = 2–6 
Mucuna seed 0.25 kg m−3 Menkiti et al. (2010)  
Periwinkle shell 0.4 kg m−3 Menkiti et al. (2009)  
CoagulantPollutantsDosageRemoval efficiencyReference
Starch + alum + FeCl3 Turbidity, suspended solids 30–250 mg L−1 pH = 4, efficiency =>90% Nnaji et al. (2014)  
Fly ash Chemical oxygen demand, suspended solids 10 g L−1 pH = 9, efficiency is >90% Yan et al. (2012)  
Chitin Turbidity, suspended solids 10 mg L−1 pH = 8, efficiency is >90% Menkiti & Onukwuli (2011a, 2011b)  
Afzelia bella seed 0.2–0.3 kg m−3 pH = 2–6 
Mucuna seed 0.25 kg m−3 Menkiti et al. (2010)  
Periwinkle shell 0.4 kg m−3 Menkiti et al. (2009)  
Table 4

Treatment procedures for coke oven wastewater

Material usedRemoval efficiencyReference
Electrochemical oxidation with PbO2-Ti anode >90% of COD and ammonia removed Chiang et al. (1995)  
Submerged biofilm + activated sludge 80–99% efficient Junxin et al. (1996)  
A1-A2-O + Burkholderia pickettii 16–59% COD removed Jianlong et al. (2002)  
Adsorption catalytic oxidation >90% efficient Hong et al. (2003)  
Ultrasonic irradiation + catalytic oxidation + activated sludge Activated sludge + ultrasonic irradiation or ultrasonic irradiation + FeSO4 removed 48–81% and 96% pollutants respectively Ning et al. (2005)  
Pilot plant sequential batch reactor 85–99% of ammonia, COD, thiocyanate, phenol removed Maranon et al. (2008)  
ZVI = 10 g L−1 active carbon + 30 g L−1 iron 44% removal of COD at pH 4 Lai et al. (2007)  
Nitrifying–denitrifying biofilm 94% removal of COD + ammonia Rong et al. (2007)  
BDD anode system Removal of TOC + NH3-N Zhu et al. (2009)  
Manganese + magnesium ore 70–100% removal of phenols, COD, sulphide, ammonia, phosphate Chen et al. (2009)  
A1-A2-O-MBR 71–99% removal of COD, phenol, ammonia, TN Zhao et al. (2009)  
Biofilm reactor + ZVI 92% removal of COD, ammonia, TN, phenols, humic acids Lai et al. (2009)  
Phanerochaete chrysosporium on wood chips of Italian poplar 72–87% removal of phenol, COD in 6 days Lu et al. (2009)  
200 g L−1 activated coke 91% removal of COD, color at 40 °C Zhang et al. (2010)  
Vacuum distillation + NaOH 99% COD removed Mao et al. (2010)  
Fenton oxidation + iron + 0.3 M H2O2 44–50% COD and 95% phenol removed at pH <6.5 Chu et al. (2012)  
A1-A2-O + MBR + nanofiltration + reverse osmosis 45–99% removal of COD, BOD, ammonia, phenol, TCN, thiocyanate, fluoride Jin et al. (2013)  
Super critical water oxidation + H2O2 + salt separator 99% removal efficiency at 650 °C Du et al. (2013)  
Membrane distillation + pre-coagulation >90% removal of non-volatile organic pollutants; poly-aluminum chloride coagulated volatile organic pollutants Li et al. (2016)  
Material usedRemoval efficiencyReference
Electrochemical oxidation with PbO2-Ti anode >90% of COD and ammonia removed Chiang et al. (1995)  
Submerged biofilm + activated sludge 80–99% efficient Junxin et al. (1996)  
A1-A2-O + Burkholderia pickettii 16–59% COD removed Jianlong et al. (2002)  
Adsorption catalytic oxidation >90% efficient Hong et al. (2003)  
Ultrasonic irradiation + catalytic oxidation + activated sludge Activated sludge + ultrasonic irradiation or ultrasonic irradiation + FeSO4 removed 48–81% and 96% pollutants respectively Ning et al. (2005)  
Pilot plant sequential batch reactor 85–99% of ammonia, COD, thiocyanate, phenol removed Maranon et al. (2008)  
ZVI = 10 g L−1 active carbon + 30 g L−1 iron 44% removal of COD at pH 4 Lai et al. (2007)  
Nitrifying–denitrifying biofilm 94% removal of COD + ammonia Rong et al. (2007)  
BDD anode system Removal of TOC + NH3-N Zhu et al. (2009)  
Manganese + magnesium ore 70–100% removal of phenols, COD, sulphide, ammonia, phosphate Chen et al. (2009)  
A1-A2-O-MBR 71–99% removal of COD, phenol, ammonia, TN Zhao et al. (2009)  
Biofilm reactor + ZVI 92% removal of COD, ammonia, TN, phenols, humic acids Lai et al. (2009)  
Phanerochaete chrysosporium on wood chips of Italian poplar 72–87% removal of phenol, COD in 6 days Lu et al. (2009)  
200 g L−1 activated coke 91% removal of COD, color at 40 °C Zhang et al. (2010)  
Vacuum distillation + NaOH 99% COD removed Mao et al. (2010)  
Fenton oxidation + iron + 0.3 M H2O2 44–50% COD and 95% phenol removed at pH <6.5 Chu et al. (2012)  
A1-A2-O + MBR + nanofiltration + reverse osmosis 45–99% removal of COD, BOD, ammonia, phenol, TCN, thiocyanate, fluoride Jin et al. (2013)  
Super critical water oxidation + H2O2 + salt separator 99% removal efficiency at 650 °C Du et al. (2013)  
Membrane distillation + pre-coagulation >90% removal of non-volatile organic pollutants; poly-aluminum chloride coagulated volatile organic pollutants Li et al. (2016)  

COD, chemical oxygen demand; TN, total nitrogen; TOC, total organic carbon; A1-A2-O, anaerobic–anoxic–aerobic biofilm system; ZVI, zero-valent iron; MBR, membrane bioreactor; BDD, boron-doped diamond; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; TCN, total cyanide.

Poly-electrolytes such as alum, dioctyl-sodium-sulpho-succinate, N-cetyl-N,N,N-trimethyl ammonium bromide and synthetic flocculants such as Morarfloc-A or True-floc are mostly used (Folkard & Sutherland 1996). Although synthetic flocculants are more effective than alum as they remove more solids in less time and require a much smaller dose (1 mg L−1) than the latter (30–50 mg L−1), they are linked with many health effects (Ghose 2001). Therefore natural products or coagulants should be considered, which not only remove pollutants, but produce less sludge, ensure potability, and are biodegradable and cost-effective. Literature has reported use of bark resins, ashes, and seaweed extracts by villagers for water treatment (Folkard & Sutherland 1996). Coagulants can be prepared from seeds of Moringa oleifera, M. stenopetala, Hibiscus sabdariffa and Strychnos potatorum (Kapse et al. 2017), or from the byproducts obtained during oil extraction from the seeds (Ghebremichel 2004). Due to presence of amino acids such as arginine, Moringa seed preparations can outperform Al2SO4 to remove 95% of the pollutants in coal washery effluent (Menkiti et al. 2011). Pilot scale studies have also proved the efficiency of coagulants from Mucuna sloanei and Afzelia bella seeds for treatment of WW (Menkiti et al. 2010; Menkiti & Onukwuli 2011a, 2011b). Coagulants from natural starch and chitin also show similar results (Table 3) and can be prepared by electrolyzing a solution of cassava starch (obtained from milled cassava tubers) and calcium hypochlorite in 1:2 ratio followed by mixing with FeCl3 or mixing the extracted chitin coagulant with alum and FeCl3 (Menkiti et al. 2008, 2009; Menkiti & Onukwuli 2011a, 2011b; Nnaji et al. 2014). FA-based coagulants were also studied by Yan et al. (2012). The macrofungus Pleurotus ostreatus showed removal of manganese, zinc, nickel, copper, cobalt, chromium, iron, and lead from 50% diluted WW (Vaseem et al. 2017). Thus a hypothetical coal washery treatment plant can be proposed which should incorporate an adequate sedimentation time followed by a wise use of coagulants. The process can also ensure a possibility for recovery of coal fines.

COKE PLANT WASTEWATER AND TREATMENT

Every 1,000 tons of coke production requires 4,000 m3 of freshwater and generates 1,000 m3 of coke oven WW during cooling of hot coke over different coolers (Sharma & Philip 2016). This WW contains high amounts of ammonia, phenol, cyanide, thiocyanate, total nitrogen, suspended matter and COD (Table 1) at a concentration higher than the standard permissible limits (EPR 1986). Pollutants removal from the WW is either done by concentration or destructive processes (Figure 3). In the concentration process the pollutants are recovered by dissolving them out by organic solvents which have a high distribution coefficient for the particular pollutant; some of the solvents are methyl isobutyl ketone, di-isopropyl ether and butyl acetate which extracts phenol (Lu et al. 2009). Similarly, cyanide is often precipitated as valuable iron complexes using ferric solutions which also remove suspended matter, oil and grease. Ammonia is removed and recovered through steam stripping, wherein alkaline ammoniacal liquor is reacted with steam. Synthetic zeolites can also remove ammonia through ion-exchange technique and advantageously can be regenerated with low-cost brine (Chu et al. 2012; Cardoso et al. 2015). The destructive treatment procedures are listed in Table 4, and mainly degrade the pollutants by various agents. For example advanced Fenton oxidation process with H2O2 can remove COD and phenol; activated coke can remove maximum COD and color at 40 °C (Zhang et al. 2010); zerovalent iron (ZVI) having carbon and iron can also remove COD through coagulation, precipitation and oxidation–reduction processes compared to ferric sulphate or activated carbon alone (Hong et al. 2003; Lai et al. 2007); electrochemical oxidation in presence of lead dioxide coated titanium anode can remove COD and ammonia (Chiang et al. 1995).

Figure 3

Treatment processes of coke oven wastewater.

Figure 3

Treatment processes of coke oven wastewater.

However, boron-doped diamond anode systems are more efficient than lead dioxide anodes as the energy consumption is only 60% (Zhu et al. 2009). Manganese and magnesium ores can oxidize COD, ammonia, phenols, and sulphides under acidic conditions (Chen et al. 2009); supercritical oxidation of water with H2O2 and 300% excess oxygen in a continuous-flow reactor can remove 99% of pollutants (Du et al. 2013); vacuum distillation with caustic soda can remove 99% of COD (Mao et al. 2010). Bio-augmentation is another method which is used in removing recalcitrant organic compounds from WW. Aerobic bacteria usually degrade pollutants at optimum pH, temperature, oxygen, nutrients, biomass concentrations and residence time (Chu et al. 2012). Jianlong et al. (2002) used a quinoline degrading bacterium, Burkholderia pickettii, for bioaugmenting the oxic reactor of an anaerobic–anoxic–aerobic (A1-A2-O) system. Nitrosomonas bacteria can oxidize ammonia to nitrite while Nitrobacter oxidizes nitrite to nitrate (Jianlong et al. 2002). They can be attached to fixed media to form fixed-film bioreactors or hybrid biofilms to remove pollutants from WW passing through them (Rong et al. 2007). WW passed through the immobilized fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium reduced phenol and COD (Lu et al. 2009). Biofilm reactors with ZVI have also been used in practical applications (Lai et al. 2009). Ammonia can also be oxidized by activated sludge treatment process as well as oxidation ditches, which have a longer residence time than the former (Schroeder 1977; Ning et al. 2005), whereas lagoon systems have 5–7 days residence times and higher temperature (Kargi & Uygur 2002). Activated sludge plants generally involve three reactors which remove COD, followed by phenols, ammonia and thiocyanate, and finally nitrate. Methanol can be added as an external carbon source in such systems (Vazquez et al. 2006). Sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) also have three reactors which undertake simultaneous clarification along with treatment; the reactors are namely stripping tank, neutralization tank and SBR tank (Maranon et al. 2008). Membrane bioreactors (A1-A2-O-MBR) include an extra anoxic basin where the screened raw WW is collected, and then passed to pre-aeration as well as MBR basins to remove pollutants (Zhao et al. 2009). However, these reactors require frequent membrane cleaning processes to prevent membrane fouling. The propensity for membrane fouling can be reduced by coupling membrane distillation with pre-coagulation for biologically treated WWs, which can remove salts, and volatile and non-volatile organic pollutants through coagulation with poly-aluminum chloride (Li et al. 2016). Submerged biofilm-activated sludge hybrid system can remove maximum ammonia and COD from WW (Junxin et al. 1996). Additionally, ultrasonic irradiation can also be coupled with catalytic oxidation or activated sludge process, which shows more efficiency in treatment (Ning et al. 2005). Anammox reactors are a type of system which undertakes anaerobic ammonium oxidation using planctomycete bacteria (Aksogan et al. 2003). Down-flow hanging sponge reactors have a series of hanging polyurethane sponges with diverse microbial biomass upon which ammoniacal WW is trickled. The diverse microbial biomasses are for establishing ecosystems with long food chains and reduction in sludge production during treatment (Zhang et al. 2008). Practically, A1-A2-O systems can be coupled with MBR, NF and RO systems for WW treatment (Jin et al. 2013). However, the disadvantage of such systems is further treatment and disposal of the concentrates from NF-RO units.

FLY ASH LEACHATES AND TREATMENT

FA leachates contain varying concentrations of metals, as shown in Table 1, which often surpass the limits of Indian drinking water standards (BIS 2012). Some management practices for these contaminated WWs include mainly prevention of their generation through covering dumps with topsoil and reducing contact of FA with rainwater. The buffering capacity of soil attenuates the metals in organic matter. Transportation of FA as high concentrated slurry during disposal can also minimize leachate generation and water consumption. Demineralization of coal before its burning is a topic of recent research, which can control release of many pollutants in all the WWs. Even if the leachates are formed, their migration to groundwater can be reduced by an adequate liner below the ash ponds, and a leachate collection system wherein the leachate is collected. Along with these the surface water flow should also be controlled (Maiti & Prasad 2016). Attenuating barriers composed of sand, iron, and bentonite can reduce chromium from 25 to 0.0025 mg L−1 in alkaline leachates (Astrup et al. 2000). Flue gas desulphurization gypsum can precipitate 40–100% of metals in acidic leachates as sulfides (Jayaranjan & Annachhatre 2012). However, metals in acidic leachates can be removed by similar procedures as mentioned for AMD, viz. use of coagulants, bio-electrochemical technology, etc. Extensive research is required for large scale treatment of leachates using latest developments in the field of water treatment.

CHALLENGES

Despite the usefulness of the above treatments, none of them if used alone can be outstanding in terms of amount of wastewater to be treated, contaminant removal potential and treatment cost. The specific challenges of the above techniques are as follows.

  • (1)

    In the case of biological treatments, despite being cost-effective and eco-friendly, they can take a large span of time to treat the huge amount of WW produced in real conditions.

  • (2)

    Passive remediation techniques are expensive for long-term problems such as AMD and therefore can be combined with other technologies.

  • (3)

    Although advanced oxidation and membrane techniques are primary processes for advanced treatment of coke oven WW, they are expensive and undergo membrane fouling. Studies should be focused on reducing treatment cost along with techniques to control membrane fouling.

  • (4)

    Very few field studies have been found which could uphold the wide applicability and sustainability of the treatment procedures. Hence, future studies should be focused towards scaling up the pilot scale studies with the actual coal-related effluents.

CONCLUSION

A wise analysis of advantages and challenges suggest that the treatment methods can potentially purify water to the drinking level stage when used collaboratively. After further validation studies they can be practically implemented in areas where fresh water is scarce. Advantageously simple treatment techniques can remediate mildly polluted WW with less expense. There is a growing inclination towards WW treatment through safer eco-friendly techniques; hence biological approaches can be used in an integrated manner with conventional techniques to reduce use of chemicals and formation of sludges, and ensure potability, cost-effectiveness and regeneration of treatment materials.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors are grateful to Dr Pradeep Kumar Singh, Director, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, for continuous support and motivation. The preparation of the manuscript did not involve the contribution of funding sources.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

All authors confirm that they have no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Aelion
C. M.
,
Davis
H. T.
,
Flora
J. R.
,
Kirtland
B. C.
&
Amidon
M. B.
2009
Application of encapsulation (pH-sensitive polymer and phosphate buffer macrocapsules): a novel approach to remediation of acidic ground water
.
Environmental Pollution
157
(
1
),
186
193
.
Aksogan
S.
,
Basturk
A.
,
Yuksel
E.
&
Akgiray
O.
2003
On the use of crushed shells of apricot stones as the upper layer in dual media filters
.
Water Science and Technology
48
(
11
),
497
503
.
Astrup
T.
,
Stipp
S. L. S.
&
Christensen
T. H.
2000
Immobilization of chromate from coal fly ash leachate using an attenuating barrier containing zero-valent iron
.
Environmental Science and Technology
34
(
19
),
4163
4168
.
Benner
S. G.
,
Blowes
D. W.
&
Ptacek
C. J.
1997
A full-scale porous reactive wall for prevention of acid mine drainage
.
Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation
17
(
4
),
99
107
.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards)
2012
Drinking water specifications IS 10500
.
Castillo
J.
,
Perez-Lopez
R.
,
Caraballo
M. A.
,
Nieto
J. M.
,
Martins
M.
,
Costa
M. C.
,
Olias
M.
,
Ceron
J. C.
&
Tucoulou
R.
2012
Biologically-induced precipitation of sphalerite–wurtzite nanoparticles by sulfate-reducing bacteria: implications for acid mine drainage treatment
.
Science of the Total Environment
423
,
176
184
.
Chen
T.
,
Huang
X.
,
Pan
M.
,
Jin
S.
,
Peng
S.
&
Fallgren
P. H.
2009
Treatment of coking wastewater by using manganese and magnesium ores
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
168
(
2
),
843
847
.
Chiang
L. C.
,
Chang
J. E.
&
Wen
T. C.
1995
Electrochemical oxidation process for the treatment of coke-plant wastewater
.
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A
30
(
4
),
753
771
.
Chu
T. Y. J.
,
Ruane
R. J.
&
Krenkel
P. A.
1978
Characterization and reuse of ash pond effluents in coal-fired power plants
.
Water Pollution Control Federation
50
(
11
),
2494
2508
.
Das
B.
,
Prakash
S.
,
Biswal
S. K.
&
Reddy
P. S. R.
2006
Settling characteristics of coal washery tailings using synthetic polyelectrolytes with fine magnetite
.
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
106
(
10
),
707
.
Daubert
L. N.
&
Brennan
R. A.
2007
Passive remediation of acid mine drainage using crab shell chitin
.
Environmental Engineering Science
24
(
10
),
1475
1480
.
Debnath
A. K.
2013
Sustainable Mining in India
.
In: Energy Conclave
. .
Dvorak
D. H.
,
Hedin
R. S.
,
Edenborn
H. M.
&
McIntire
P. E.
1992
Treatment of metal-contaminated water using bacterial sulfate reduction: results from pilot-scale reactors
.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering
40
(
5
),
609
616
.
ECL
2014
Final Environmental Impact Assessment & Environmental Management Plan
.
(As per EIA Notification, 2006) for Cluster No. 10 (Group of Mines) Raniganj Coalfield Eastern Coalfields Limited, Regional Institute – I, Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd
.
Eisenberg
S. H.
,
Tittlebaum
M. E.
,
Eaton
H. C.
&
Soroczak
M. M.
1986
Chemical characteristics of selected flyash leachates
.
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A
21
(
4
),
383
402
.
EPR (Environmental Protection Rules)
1986
General standard for discharges of environmental pollutants Part A
. In:
Effluents Notified at sl. no. 8.
(S. P. Gautam, ed.),
Ministry of Environment and Forest, Department of Environment, Forest and Wild Life, Government of India
,
New Delhi
,
Schedule VI (rule 3A)
, pp.
545
547
.
Equeenuddin
S. M.
,
Tripathy
S.
,
Sahoo
P. K.
&
Panigrahi
M. K.
2010
Hydrogeochemical characteristics of acid mine drainage and water pollution at Makum Coalfield, India
.
Journal of Geochemical Exploration
105
(
3
),
75
82
.
Folkard
G.
&
Sutherland
J.
1996
Moringa oleifera: a tree and a litany of potential
.
Agroforestry Today
8
(
3
),
5
8
.
Ghebremichel
K. A.
2004
Moringa Seed and Pumice as Alternative Natural Materials for Drinking Water Treatment. TRITA-LWR PHD, 1013
.
Ghose
M. K.
2001
Design of cost-effective coal washery effluent treatment plant for clean environment
.
Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research
60
,
40
47
.
Greben
H. A.
,
Baloyi
J.
,
Sigama
J.
&
Venter
S. N.
2009
Bioremediation of sulphate rich mine effluents using grass cuttings and rumen fluid microorganisms
.
Journal of Geochemical Exploration
100
(
2–3
),
163
168
.
Hedin
R. S.
,
Watzlaf
G. R.
&
Nairn
R. W.
1994
Passive treatment of acid mine drainage with limestone
.
Journal of Environmental Quality
23
(
6
),
1338
1345
.
Hong
L.
,
Linxia
Z.
&
Keming
W.
2003
Study on the treatment of coke plant wastewater by adsorption catalytic oxidation process
.
Industrial Water Treatment-Tianjin
23
(
5
),
35
37
.
Jayaranjan
M. L. D.
&
Annachhatre
A. P.
2012
Precipitation of heavy metals from coal ash leachate using biogenic hydrogen sulfide generated from FGD gypsum
.
Water Science and Technology
67
(
2
),
311
318
.
Jianlong
W.
,
Xiangchun
Q.
,
Libo
W.
,
Yi
Q.
&
Hegemann
W.
2002
Bioaugmentation as a tool to enhance the removal of refractory compound in coke plant wastewater
.
Process Biochemistry
38
(
5
),
777
781
.
Junxin
L.
,
Baozhen
W.
,
Weiguang
L.
,
Chengji
J.
,
Xiangdong
C.
&
Lin
W.
1996
Removal of nitrogen from coal gasification and coke plant wastewaters in A/O submerged biofilm-activated sludge (SBF-AS) hybrid system
.
Water Science and Technology
34
(
10
),
17
24
.
Kepler
D. A.
&
McCleary
E. C.
1994
Successive alkalinity-producing systems (SAPS) for the treatment of acidic mine drainage
.
Bureau of Mines Special Publication SP 06B-94
1
,
185
194
.
Lai
P.
,
Zhao
H. Z.
,
Wang
C.
&
Ni
J. R.
2007
Advanced treatment of coking wastewater by coagulation and zero-valent iron processes
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
147
(
1–2
),
232
239
.
Lai
P.
,
Zhao
H. Z.
,
Zeng
M.
&
Ni
J. R.
2009
Study on treatment of coking wastewater by biofilm reactors combined with zero-valent iron process
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
162
(
2
),
1423
1429
.
Lu
Y.
,
Yan
L.
,
Wang
Y.
,
Zhou
S.
,
Fu
J.
&
Zhang
J.
2009
Biodegradation of phenolic compounds from coking wastewater by immobilized white rot fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
165
(
1
),
1091
1097
.
Maranon
E.
,
Vazquez
I.
,
Rodriguez
J.
,
Castrillon
L.
,
Fernandez
Y.
&
Lopez
H.
2008
Treatment of coke wastewater in a sequential batch reactor (SBR) at pilot plant scale
.
Bioresource Technology
99
(
10
),
4192
4198
.
McIntire
P. E.
&
Edenborn
H. M.
1990
The use of bacterial sulfate reduction in the treatment of drainage from coal mines
. In:
Proceedings of the 1990 Mining and Reclamation Conference and Exhibition
.
West Virginia University
,
Morgantown
,
2
,
409
415
Menkiti
M. C.
&
Onukwuli
O. D.
2011a
Coag-flocculation studies of Afzelia bella coagulant (ABC) in coal effluent using single and simulated multi angle nephelometry
.
Journal of Minerals & Materials Characterization & Engineering
10
(
3
),
279
.
Menkiti
M. C.
&
Onukwuli
O. D.
2011b
Impact of pH variation on coag-flocculation behaviour of chitin derived coag-flocculant in coal washery effluent medium
.
Journal of Minerals & Materials Characterization & Engineering
10
(
15
),
1391
.
Menkiti
M. C.
,
Igbokwe
P. K.
,
Ugodulunwa
F. X. O.
&
Onukwuli
O. D.
2008
Rapid coagulation/flocculation kinetics of coal effluent with high organic content using blended and unblended chitin derived coagulant (CSC)
.
Research Journal of Applied Sciences
3
(
4
),
317
323
.
Menkiti
M. C.
,
Nnaji
P. C.
&
Onukwuli
O. D.
2009
Coag-flocculation kinetics and functional parameters response of periwinkle shell coagulant (PSC) to pH variation in organic rich coal effluent medium
.
Nature and Science
7
(
6
),
1
18
.
Menkiti
M. C.
,
Nnaji
P. C.
,
Nwoye
C. I.
&
Onukwuli
O. D.
2010
Coag-flocculation kinetics and functional parameters response of mucuna seed coagulant to pH variation in organic rich coal effluent medium
.
Journal of Minerals & Materials Characterization & Engineering
9
(
2
),
89
.
Menkiti
M. C.
,
Nwoye
C. I.
,
Onyechi
C. A.
&
Onukwuli
O. D.
2011
Factorial optimization and kinetics of coal washery effluent coag-flocculation by Moringa oleifera seed biomass
.
Advances in Chemical Engineering and Science
1
(
3
),
125
.
Ministry of Environment and Water Resources
1986
Ministerial Decision 5/86. Regulations for waste water re-use and discharge. Law on the Conservation of the Environment and Prevention of Pollution. Sultanate of Oman, Muscat
.
Miranda
M. A.
,
Sauer
A.
&
Shinde
D.
2010
Mine the Gap: Connecting Water Risks and Disclosure in the Mining Sector
.
World Resource Institute
,
Washington, DC, USA
.
Nathan
Y.
,
Dvorachek
M.
,
Pelly
I.
&
Mimran
U.
1999
Characterization of coal fly ash from Israel
.
Fuel
78
(
2
),
205
213
.
Ning
P.
,
Bart
H. J.
,
Jiang
Y.
,
De Haan
A.
&
Tien
C.
2005
Treatment of organic pollutants in coke plant wastewater by the method of ultrasonic irradiation, catalytic oxidation and activated sludge
.
Separation and Purification Technology
41
(
2
),
133
139
.
Oberholster
P. J.
,
Cheng
P. H.
,
Botha
A. M.
,
Hobbs
P.
&
Hill
L.
2017
Assessment of selected macroalgae for use in a biological hybrid system for treating sulphur in acid mine drainage (AMD)
.
Journal of Applied Phycology
30
(
2
),
1
10
.
Ozyonar
F.
&
Karagozoglu
B.
2015
Treatment of pretreated coke wastewater by electrocoagulation and electrochemical peroxidation processes
.
Separation and Purification Technology
150
,
268
277
.
Pal
S.
,
Adhikari
K.
,
Ghosh
S.
&
Mukherjee
S. N.
2011
Characterization of subsurface water near an industrial wastewater disposal site
.
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
4
(
6
),
437
441
.
Pozo
G.
,
Pongy
S.
,
Keller
J.
,
Ledezma
P.
&
Freguia
S.
2017
A novel bioelectrochemical system for chemical-free permanent treatment of acid mine drainage
.
Water Research
126
,
411
420
.
Rong
Q.
,
Kun
Y.
&
Yu
Z. X.
2007
Treatment of coke plant wastewater by SND fixed biofilm hybrid system
.
Journal of Environmental Sciences
19
(
2
),
153
159
.
RGC (Royal Government of Cambodia)
2009
Effluent Standard for Pollution Sources Discharging Wastewater to Public Water Areas or Sewer
.
Sub Decree on Water Pollution Control, 27
,
ANRK.BK., Kingdom of Cambodia
, pp.
10
13
.
Sarode
D. B.
,
Jadhav
R. N.
,
Khatik
V. A.
,
Ingle
S. T.
&
Attarde
S. B.
2010
Extraction and leaching of heavy metals from thermal power plant fly ash and its admixtures
.
Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
6
,
1325
1330
.
Schroeder
E. D.
1977
Water and Wastewater Treatment
.
McGraw-Hill
,
New York, USA
, pp.
288
305
.
Sharma
N. K.
&
Philip
L.
2016
Combined biological and photocatalytic treatment of real coke oven wastewater
.
Chemical Engineering Journal
295
,
20
28
.
Sierra
C.
,
Saiz
J. R. A.
&
Gallego
J. L. R.
2013
Nanofiltration of acid mine drainage in an abandoned mercury mining area
.
Water Air and Soil Pollution
224
(
10
),
1734
.
Silva
L. F.
,
Ward
C. R.
,
Hower
J. C.
,
Izquierdo
M.
,
Waanders
F.
,
Oliveira
M. L. S.
,
Li
Z.
,
Hatch
R. S.
&
Querol
X.
2010
Mineralogy and leaching characteristics of coal ash from a major Brazilian power plant
.
Coal Combustion and Gasification Products
2
,
51
65
.
Soni
A. K.
&
Wolkersdorfer
C.
2016
Mine water: policy perspective for improving water management in the mining environment with respect to developing economies
.
International Journal of Mining Reclamation and Environment
30
(
2
),
115
127
.
TERI
2013
Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Coal Mining and Power Generation among Resource Rich States
.
The Energy and Resources Institute
,
New Delhi, India
.
Tiwary
R. K.
&
Dhar
B. B.
1994
Environmental pollution from coal mining activities in Damodar river basin, India
.
Mine Water and the Environment
13
,
1
10
.
Tsukamoto
T. K.
&
Miller
G. C.
1999
Methanol as a carbon source for microbiological treatment of acid mine drainage
.
Water Research
33
(
6
),
1365
1370
.
USEPA
2014
Reference Guide to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water
.
USEPA 542-R-14-001
.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
.
Uster
B.
,
O-Sullivan
A. D.
,
Ko
S. Y.
,
Evans
A.
,
Pope
J.
,
Trumm
D.
&
Caruso
B.
2015
The use of mussel shells in upward-flow sulfate-reducing bioreactors treating acid mine drainage
.
Mine Water and the Environment
34
(
4
),
442
454
.
Vasquez
Y.
,
Escobar
M. C.
,
Neculita
C. M.
,
Arbeli
Z.
&
Roldan
F.
2016
Selection of reactive mixture for biochemical passive treatment of acid mine drainage
.
Environment Earth Science
75
(
7
),
576
.
Vazquez
I.
,
Rodriguez
J.
,
Maranon
E.
,
Castrillon
L.
&
Fernandez
Y.
2006
Study of the aerobic biodegradation of coke wastewater in a two and three-step activated sludge process
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
137
(
3
),
1681
1688
.
Wei
X. X.
,
Zhang
Z. Y.
,
Fan
Q. L.
,
Yuan
X. Y.
&
Guo
D. S.
2012
The effect of treatment stages on the coking wastewater hazardous compounds and their toxicity
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
239
,
135
141
.
WHO (World Health Organization)
1997
Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 2nd edn., Vol. 2. Heath Criteria and Other Supporting Information
.
World Health Organization
,
Geneva, Switzerland
, pp.
940
949
.
Yan
L.
,
Wang
Y.
,
Ma
H.
,
Han
Z.
,
Zhang
Q.
&
Chen
Y.
2012
Feasibility of fly ash-based composite coagulant for coal washing wastewater treatment
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
203
,
221
228
.
Yao
Z. T.
,
Ji
X. S.
,
Sarker
P. K.
,
Tang
J. H.
,
Ge
L. Q.
,
Xia
M. S.
&
Xi
Y. Q.
2015
A comprehensive review on the applications of coal fly ash
.
Earth-Science Reviews
141
,
105
121
.
Yu
X.
,
Wei
C.
,
Wu
H.
,
Jiang
Z.
&
Xu
R.
2015
Improvement of biodegradability for coking wastewater by selective adsorption of hydrophobic organic pollutants
.
Separation and Purification Technology
151
,
23
30
.
Zhang
L.
,
Zheng
P.
,
Tang
C.
&
Jin
R.
2008
Anaerobic ammonium oxidation for treatment of ammonium-rich wastewaters
.
Journal of Zhejiang University Science B
9
(
5
),
416
426
.
Zhang
M. h.
,
lin Zhao
Q.
,
Bai
X.
&
Fang Ye
Z.
2010
Adsorption of organic pollutants from coking wastewater by activated coke
.
Colloids and Surfaces A
362
(
1
),
140
146
.
Zhao
W. T.
,
Huang
X.
&
Lee
D. J.
2009
Enhanced treatment of coke plant wastewater using an anaerobic–anoxic–oxic membrane bioreactor system
.
Separation and Purification Technology
66
(
2
),
279
286
.
Zhao
D.
,
Lun
W.
&
Wei
J.
2017
Discussion on wastewater treatment process of coal chemical industry
. In:
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
,
IOP Publishing
,
100
(
1
), p.
012067
.
Ziemkiewicz
P. F.
,
Skousen
J. G.
&
Simmons
J.
2003
Long-term performance of passive acid mine drainage treatment systems
.
Mine Water and the Environment
22
(
3
),
118
129
.